My Literature Classes

 

It all started from my favorite poem entitled AN OBSTACLE by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, then my (present) students labeled me as "a woman movement fighter". LOL.

Annually, every even semester I have two classes in one private university in Semarang: Poetry Analysis and Drama Analysis. As an acclaimed feminist, one can guess that I will choose some materials related to women in the two classes. Besides "An Obstacle", I discussed "Reassurance", which was also written by Gilman. I chose it when in the class discussing 'some poems written by the same poet' to recognize the presence of the poet in his/her works. For those who study Gilman's works, they will easily recognize that all of her works represent her ideas as one 'heroine' for equality, be it poems, articles, or short stories.

Gilman lived in an era (1860-1935) where many American women struggled for suffrage. Nevertheless, Gilman never involved herself in such a struggle because she believed that to make women equal with men, having rights to vote in general election was not enough. She opined that women had to get equal rights to work outside the home, as well as to bear their own name, instead of just known as Mrs. X.

To commemorate Kartini Day on April 21 (FYI, Kartini was chosen by Soeharto New Order regime as a heroine for her struggle to give women equal chance to pursue education) I chose two other poems to be discussed in Poetry Analysis class, "Dedication of the Cook" by Anna Wickham, a British poet, and "Women of My Color" by Wanda Coleman, an African American poet. The two poems illustrate different problems women face. Wickham questioned whether women could have their private time to do what they wanted – such as to “indite an ode or mend a sonnet”, to be a great poet – and not troubled by household chores. Meanwhile, Coleman described the unfavorable condition to be born as a black woman. It is obviously stated that African American women had to liberate themselves first from any stereotypes addressed to them, then they could join the white women’s struggle for equality with men.

In Drama Analysis class, I chose TRIFLES by Susan Glaspell. Although this play was written around a century ago, Glaspell sharply chose a topic that is still up-to-date nowadays. She narrated the way men viewed women, bothering ‘trivial’ things too much so that they were not as alert as men, while in fact, from those ‘trifles’ the two women in the play even successfully discovered the background why Minnie Foster murdered her husband.

One very favorable thing for me to teach literature classes: I choose any literary work through which I can expose my feminist perspective, to ‘awaken’ my students from the latent danger of patriarchal culture. :)

PBIS 10.40 270410

My analysis on 'An Obstacle' is at http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/obstacle.html

My analysis on "Women of my Color" is at http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-on-colemans-women-of-my-color.html

My analysis on "Reassurance" is at http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/welcome-women_16.html

Mother - daughter relationship

I just read an article on how parents –especially mothers – wrongly treat their daughters so that it will worsen the relationship between mother – daughter. To make it worse, it will make daughters lose their confidence to be women.

Click here http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2010/04/11/04030467/ibu.dan.anak.perempuan (in Bahasa Indonesia)

The fact that many mothers becoming the biggest critic to their daughters is the main scapegoat. The criticism varies from a ‘trivial’ thing such as wearing ‘improper’ clothes and makeup (according to the mothers’ opinion of course), to the way how daughters comment on their mothers’ confiding in them, to what kind of guy daughters date, until the so-called ridiculous thing in this era – checking their hymen when those mothers find out that their daughters have already had sex out of wedlock and then force them to have hymen operation, in order to be ‘recognized’ as “pure” women when they have their ‘first night’ with their husband later on.

The first point: wearing improper clothes and makeup. Indeed it is true that those ‘mothers’ were also “victims” in their own era. For example when they did not wear ‘proper’ makeup and clothes, they were ridiculed by their contemporaries – let’s say schoolmates, college mates, or workmates. Their being inferior made them feel uneasy. Not being able to find the reason what made them uncomfortable, they took the negative comment to their heart. In fact, it didn’t need to happen like that if they had big confidence to be themselves: to wear clothes and make according to their own taste.

Not wanting their daughters to be ridiculed like how they used to be, those mothers keep criticizing their daughters. They force their daughters to follow the ‘trend’ or even worse, the way patriarchal culture stereotypes women’s appearance. They do not realize that their daughters are different from them. In fact, those mothers just need to be confident, and tell their daughters, “Be yourself, and be confident.”

The second point: the way daughters comment on their mothers. It is also believed that people tend to forget that nothing stays the same, era changes. When their daughters were still little, they tended to listen to anything their mothers said. After the daughters grow up, getting knowledge – both from school / campus or from their socializing with many people, they possibly have different ways of thinking from their mothers. When their mothers confide in them – for example how their husbands treat them badly – the daughters comment something that is perhaps inappropriate, or not to the mothers’ want, the mothers complain strongly, “Why are you so mean to me? Not like when you were a kid?” This then makes their relationship bad. The mothers accuse the daughters misunderstand them. Worse than this, these inferior mothers will threaten their daughters that they will not get a husband if they do not behave well.

Again, in this case, I see how marriage-oriented society – as a result of patriarchal culture – victimizes women.

The third point: judging the guy the daughters date. Instead of having an open heart-to-heart communication between mothers and daughters, there is a tendency that those mothers just judge the guy the daughters date. The mothers’ disapproval without giving clear reasons absolutely worsens the relationship. It will be worse when the mothers keep bugging their daughters whose age is considered to be ‘crucial’ to get married soon. “Don’t make me embarrassed because you are still single in this age. Get a guy and marry him.” However, when the daughters date a guy who is not to the mothers’ ‘taste’, they will be condemned.

Again, the patriarchal culture takes its toll!

The fourth point is the worst of all. In this era, like it or not, having sex outside the wedlock has become sub culture all over the world, including Indonesia. However, many so-called conventional mothers just think about their own ‘good name’ before the parents of the guy the daughter is going to marry. To be able to keep the daughters’ purity is still one thing making them proud to be ‘good parents’. Therefore when they find out that their daughters have had sex outside the wedlock, they will ask their daughters to have hymen operation. They don’t realize that it will even degrade their own self-esteem. Isn’t it better that those mothers – daughters have good and open communication so that they will understand each other well.

When viewing it from feminist point of view, sadly I must say that even in this era, patriarchal culture still strongly exists.

PT56 21.41 110410

A spiritual teacher

I must say that my recent spiritual journey was not only very excitingly fulfilling but tiring as well. I recognized the beginning of my spiritual journey happened in 2003, the same moment when I got to know feminism ideology. I started to label myself ‘secular’ perhaps two years afterwards. For several years, it was going on very slowly but surely I suppose.

As I wrote in my post “My Spiritual Journey”, I underwent this journey all alone; I mixed everything I have read with my experience in life. I did not involve anybody around me at that time, except very few good friends to whom I talked about this matter. And they were just my good listeners and observers (of my behavior). :) But they did not take any important role.

Several days ago I found a status on FB about the quality of someone to be a ‘spiritual guru’ in someone’s spiritual journey.

“He/she is a ‘mursyid’ if anything he/she says gives you awakening, and that will make you a better human being. If not, just leave him/her because it means that he/she is just a fake ‘mursyid’” This was the status.

I commented that I didn’t have any but myself. “Too confident and narcissistic?” I questioned.
“No. It is ok. However, to avoid straying off to a very mistaken ‘interpretation’, someone had better be led by a spiritual guru. Make sure that he/she is the right guru. After that, follow him/her saying because a guru is a saint.”

I am really sorry to say that to me this sounded very ridiculous and stupid. I don’t need a guru!!! (Aha, what AE said about myself was correct: I am a spiritual snob. LOL.)

As I wrote in the beginning of this post, my recent spiritual journey has been very fulfilling and tiring. This was due to my encountering with many new online buddies on FB and many of them label themselves as ‘spiritualist’. Reading their statuses as well as their notes has made my facebooking activity enthralling; but at the same time they also absorbed my energy!!! Unconsciously, I have forced my spiritual journey run very fast (while for some years it went on slowly).

After for many years I just naively knew religious snobs from my ‘own folks’ (Islam), those online buddies opened my eyes that religious snobs come from any religion/faith. My research on ‘fundamentalist secularism’ some weeks ago made me aware that secularists can be extremist. There is a sucking opinion too when someone said in Indonesia, imported religions/faiths are not supposed to survive. (Abrahamic Faiths were ‘imported’ from Middle East countries, Buddha and Hindu were also imported, and so was Confucianism.) And everyone sounds annoyingly compelling. Why don’t they just adhere peace by respecting other people’s faiths? So that other people will respect theirs too? “lakum dinukum waliyadin” => your faith is your own business, my faith is mine.
And I am exhausted.
PT56 20.50 130310

Sadie and Maud

Sadie and Maud
Gwendolyn Brooks
(1917- 2000)

Maud went to college.
Sadie stayed at home.
Sadie scraped life
With a fine-tooth comb

She didn’t leave a tangle in.
Her comb found every strand.
Sadie was one of the livingest chits
In all the land.

Sadie bore two babies
Under her maiden name.
Maud and Ma and Papa
Nearly died of shame.

When Sadie said her last so-long
Her girls struck out from home.
(Sadie had left as heritage
Her fine-tooth comb.)

Maud, who went to college,
Is a thin brown mouse.
She is living all alone
In this old house.


Belonging to Genetic Structuralism school of Lucien Goldmann, I cannot separate the work from the background of the poet and the society when a certain work was produced. Brooks was born in 1917 in Kansas, and grew up in chicago. She herself divided her writing career into two phases, “pre-1967” and “post-1967”. In 1967 when she attended the Second Black Writers’ Conference at Fisk University, Brooks met a number of young black poets who persuaded her that “black poets should write as blacks, about blacks, and address themselves to blacks.” It means, after that conference, Brooks’ awareness of her being African American poet made her dedicate more time and work for Black society in America.

Gilbert and Gubar stated that although Brooks did not claim herself as a feminist, believing that racial issues must take priority over gender questions, she has always written with extraordinary sympathy about the dilemmas of female characters. This can be clearly seen in the poem I posted above “Sadie and Maud”.

Maud went to college.
Sadie stayed at home.

The first two lines in stanza one illustrated two sisters who choose different kind of life, Maud goes to college, to study for a betterment in her own future life while Sadie her sister chooses to stay at home. Living in an era where education is very important for someone’s success in life, one can directly conclude that Maud will have a better future than her sister Sadie.
However, if one jumps into the last stanza

Maud, who went to college,
Is a thin brown mouse.
She is living all alone
In this old house.

He/she will be surprised because things do not turn like what he/she expects. Maud is even lonely, all alone at home, feeling desperate about her life.
What happens in the process of those two sisters’ lives?

Sadie scraped life
With a fine-tooth comb

She didn’t leave a tangle in.
Her comb found every strand.

The lines three and four of stanza one illustrates that life is not easy for Sadie, for she does not go to college, she has to struggle to survive. “with a fine-tooth comb” can be interpreted as she chooses to use her physical beauty to survive. The first and second lines of stanza two depicts the continuation of the previous lines. Her struggle indeed makes her survive, she can handle every problem coming to her, with her own way of life that she chooses (by not going to college).

Sadie was one of the livingest chits
In all the land.

Lines three and four of stanza two illustrates that Sadie is the happiest girl in her community despite the fact that she has to undergo many severe problems in her struggle. Her struggle to survive by choosing “the best” life that suits her personality does make her happy.

Sadie bore two babies
Under her maiden name.
Maud and Ma and Papa
Nearly died of shame.

Stanza three describes one episode in Sadie’s life as “one of the livingest chits in all the land”. She has two babies outside the wedlock. Therefore, she makes her sister, Maud, and her parents very ashamed. Maud and her two parents obviously follow the consensus of “good girl” as required by The Cult of True Womanhood spread since the nineteenth century America that a girl must keep her virginity before getting married. Therefore what Sadie has done really makes them almost die because of feeling humiliated by society.

Does Sadie ever regret of her own choice—not to go to college, to use her physical beauty to survive, to have babies outside the wedlock? The following four lines in stanza four shows that.

When Sadie said her last so-long
Her girls struck out from home.
(Sadie had left as heritage
Her fine-tooth comb.)

Before Sadie dies, she “teaches” her two daughters to follow her step in their life, “Be yourself. Do what you think will make you happy. And be responsible with your own choice. Don’t just follow the consensus of “good norm” of society if you don’t feel happy with that.”
Since 1960s after the abolishment of Jim Crow Law in America, many African American people want to forget their “heritage” as Black people and start to follow the habit of the white (read => the European American). Many feel ashamed to do the “habit” of their parents or grandparents or older generations.

Brooks depicts Maud who follows the bulk of white women who go to college in that era, without realizing what it is for, without trying to like doing it, only as an “obligation” to be considered as “the educated” person. Doing something because it is an obligation without knowing the significance why doing it, without enjoying it will just make Maud—or anybody else—unhappy.
PT56 09.05 220407

Fundamentalist Secularism

This article started from my old post entitled "My Spiritual Journey" that I reposted in my FB a few days ago. A dear good friend commented jokingly, "what a spiritual snob you are..."


I responded, "I am absolutely not a spiritual snob. An intellectual snob, well, yes you can say that again!"


She replied, "Well, yes, first cognitive then affective ..."


Jokingly I asked her, "Spiritual snob is different from religious snob, isn't it? You know, in our country, there are abundant religious snobs who believe that they are 'ahlul jannah' and the rest are 'ahlun naar'."


However, since she tried to be careful -- offending people in the networking sites can be considered a crime in Indonesia recently, and no longer just a misdemeanor -- she continued discussing this topic via personal message, or more popularly known INBOX on FB. And she introduced me to a (for me) new term, "fundamentalist secular".


My curiosity on this term made me do googling. And ... here is the article I promised her to write.


Term 'fundamentalist secularism' comes from two terms, 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism'. I will start from giving definition of terms 'fundamentalism' and 'secularism.
Wikipedia encyclopedia defines 'fundamentalism' as a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. The term has been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.


Furthermore, Karen Armstrong defines fundamentalist movements as 'embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis" -- namely the fear that modernity will erode or even eradicate their faith and morality. This concern is shared mostly by Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


Secularism, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence


So, what is fundamentalist secularism?


Tobias Jones, the author of “The Dark Heart of Italy”, in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/06/comment.religion stated that "Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians*". He cited an example of the hijab ban in French schools. The government doesn't give any space for their citizens to practice their religion freely. Another example cited by Jones was when the government considered the wearing of crucifix or a veil or a turban as offensive to other faiths.


It reminded me of a topic discussed when I was in college. In 1620 the early immigrants left England and sailed to North America, on the ship 'Mayflower'. In the 'newfoundland' they formed Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. They did this because they could not practice the religions they adhered to freely in the home country. However, when they succeeded establishing a new 'country', they did the same thing: they forced the settlers to follow the religion of the chosen 'ruler'. When a group of people didn't accept the rule, they had to move to another area, or they would be hanged to death.


Does fundamentalist secularism only exist in the western countries?


I observe that this secularism thrives everywhere, including in Indonesia. Indonesian government is not a secular one. Indonesia is not a Muslim country either although it has MUI that obviously has interfered the citizens' lives by issuing some ‘useless’ fatwas, although some provincial governments have issued some 'unfriendly' (and sadly misogynist) Islamic (or other religious) bylaws. However, I guess there are abundant people (I know via internet) in Indonesia claiming themselves as secular, thinking that the government should separate itself from any religions' teachings, the government should respect citizens' freedom either to adhere a religion or not. Secular people -- I am one example -- do not mix their religious beliefs with their daily routine. They also believe that people must respect each other's religions, no judging that other people will go to hell only because -- let's say -- they are not praying five times a day (for Muslim) or not going to church (for Christians) etc.


Referring to my post "My Spiritual Journey" where the main theme is "there is no such chosen (or best) people (to go to heaven)", I recently have recognized that these secular people -- perhaps I am also included in this case -- start to ridiculously think themselves as the "best" one. They start to laugh at other people who adhere their religions rigidly, they consider people praying together to alleviate their sufferings as fool. They have lost their empathy. They no longer respect other people's faiths.


From some examples above, let me conclude the definition of ‘fundamentalist secularism’. It refers to the concept that government or other entities are separate from religion so rigidly or strictly that until a certain rank it eradicates the existence of religions, or more hostile it regards religions – and their adherents – evil.


As a secular Muslim, I want to end this article by citing one famous verse in Alquran, "lakum dinukum waliyadin" -> your religion is for you, my religion is for me. In a wider sense, it can be interpreted as “whatever faith (that I consider having broader sense than ‘religion’) you have, or even if you are agnostic, deist, nihilist, or atheist, keep remembering that difference is beautiful, respecting other people is necessary, being empathetic to other people is awesome.

Nana Podungge
-- the secular Muslim --

PBIS 12.12 190210

* (Totalitarianism = a form of government in which the state controls all phases of the people's lives. Totalitarianism allows only one party, headed by an absolute leader. He maintains his power over the party and the rest of the people by force and violence. Freedom of religion does not exist. => "The World Book Encyclopedia)

Religion

The disappointment I got from the religion I have adhered since I was a little kid -- due to the unfair treatment towards women and got the 'answer' from the feminism ideology -- easily made me feel 'awakened' when I came to read articles quoting anthropologists' statement that religion was a mere creation of human beings.

(Have you heard what African American said in the nineteenth century? "We were of opinion that Adam was the first white man in the world. He brought injustice to the Black people." You can relate this statement tot the fact when the White enslaved the Black for centuries in America. Worse still (for Muslim people especially) one lecturer of mine said that the Arab people (in which we can find those people who feel that they are the chosen ones since the three celestial religions were passed down in their areas) were the ones who brought the slavery to American continent. I believe Muslim people still remember the story of Bilal -- the first slave who converted to Islam. It shows that Arab countries had practiced slavery many centuries earlier before America -- the so-called country that always supports equality among human beings -- did this really inhumane act.)

Anthropologists also stated that Adam was NOT the first human being in this world.
I believe that human beings have two contradictory characters in them -- good and evil. What will make a person good or evil depends on whether he or she is able to control those two sides; whether they will listen to their intuition to be good people or their greed to be evil.

Some super genius people realized this and they wanted to 'help' maintain the peace in the world by creating the so-called religion complete with the teachings, including the belief in heaven and hell. The teachings brainwashed people's mind that they will go to heaven if they do good to others meanwhile they don't forget to worship the Almighty. Contradictorily, if they do bad things -- let us say creating bad impacts toward society -- plus keep forgetting to worship God, these people will go to hell. Heaven is portrayed as a place where all comforts exist while hell is on the way around. This makes people -- who are easily brainwashed -- so scared if they will go to hell.

One teaching in Islam (I don't know other religions' teachings, so as one example I took one teaching in Islam, the religion I have adhered since I was a little kid, and I still choose to adhere after I baptized myself as a secular, since if you live in Indonesia, it is a must to adhere one religion to be printed in your identity card LOL) is about praying five times a day. Surah Al-ankabuut verse 45 stated "praying five times a day will prevent human beings from doing evil things." This verse made Muslim people brainwashed that the avoid doing evil things, they NEED to pray five times a day. In another word we can say that they are not really confident that they will not do harmful things to others if they do not pray five times a day regularly. They do not believe in themselves that they will not do evil thing if they do not rely on one teaching in the religion -- PRAY. And they are also brainwashed that those who do not pray five times a day regularly have lower rank because they are believed to be prone to do evil. In other words it can be stated that human beings are not trusted that they can use their common sense and have high self control to do good or bad without applying what is stated in that verse. In Arabic, this is called 'hablum minannas' -- relation among human beings.

In 'hablum minallah' -- relation between human beings and the Almighty -- who needs to pray or to be worshiped? Many Muslim people think that the Almighty created human beings to worship the Almighty. It means that the Almighty is believed to be angry when people in the world do not worship the Almighty. Those people forget that in this case they have humanized the Almighty!!! The Almighty will get offended if human beings do not pray to the Almighty and will ask those people who do not pray to move out of the earth and other planets in the Milky Way.

Surah Al-ankabuut verse 45 is closely related to Surah Al-maa'uun verses 1-7. This can be translated as "those who pray five times a day will be doomed if they do it only for show off, and they are reluctant to help others." It is clearly seen that the Almighty has given more emphasis to 'hablum minannas' than to 'hablum minallah'.

However, we can find more people thinking that this teaching --praying five times a day -- is more to 'hablum minallah', more people do this only because they are scared to be put into hell. And also more people believe that they are the chosen ones because they pray five times a day while they still do evil thing to others. It is because they are brainwashed that their praying five times a day will 'erase' their so-called misdemeanour.

Going back to the main topic of this post. Those super genius people who created religions to help maintain the peace in the world were just creatures who could not always predict what would happen in the future. Many people who learn their Holy Books without trying to find relations among the verses to come to a thorough understanding -- that must control people's negative side and maintain the peace among human beings -- even come to an interpretation that ruin the peace. They believe that their religion is the rightest -- so that they feel that they are the chosen ones -- and they have rights to diminish other people.

Can we control our negative side in ourselves by relying on our common sense without those so-called holy verses who were just created by human beings?

-- Nana Podungge, the agnostic --
PBIS 11.30 02.02.2010


The picture was taken from this link

"This is Ibu Agus ..."

NOTE: In Bahasa Indonesia the word 'Ibu' is a label addressed to respected women regardless their marital status. It is followed women's first names. In my case, for example, it is very common for people to call me 'Ibu Nana'.

 

A few weeks ago, a female workmate of mine -- her name is Prima Siska -- got married. She took some days off after her wedding day. On the first day she came back to the office, a male workmate of mine greeted her, "Ibu Agus ... how are you today?" The female workmate of mine did not respond it because the other one is known as a playful guy.

 

Several days ago, I got an email from a good friend. Out of the blue she was wondering if -- as an acclaimed feminist -- I will let other people call me using my husband's name (for example 'Ibu Didi', well at the moment my boyfriend's name is Didi, but at other time it can be any other name LOL) when I get married again later.

 

I heard that the custom for Indonesian people to adopt the family name of the husband to be mentioned behind a woman's name after getting married was brought to Indonesia by the Dutch colonial government. The so-called 'real' culture of Indonesian people do not recognize the practice of 'annihilating' the existence of women only due to marriage. Even, one lecturer of mine said that in Javanese culture -- or perhaps only in Jogja culture since this lecturer of mine is from Jogja) several decades ago, a new married couple would leave their both maiden names and then they would choose one new name to be used by both of them.

 

That a colonized country adopts the culture of the colonizer is taken for granted. Even there is a tendence that the colonized country will consider everything from the colonizer better, more modern or more advanced. To adopt the husband's family name behind a woman's name after getting married is included. For those who live in areas where the people do not use family name -- like in Javanese culture -- married women will be called 'Ibu' plus the first name of the husband, such as 'Ibu Agus ..." My female workmate's husband's name is 'Agus Sulistiyo'. (NOTE: 'Sulistiyo' here is NOT a family name.)

 

I was amused by my mother's experience relating to this addressed name. In 1970s when my family lived in an area where the inhabitants were included into the low class society, neighbors called her own name -- Ida -- plus 'auntie' at the front. (NOTE: In Indonesia, mostly in Javanese culture, it is very common to call the married female neighbors 'auntie' while the married male neighbors 'uncle'.) My mom was popularly-known as 'auntie Ida' in that area. Meanwhile, when she got involved in any gathering held by my dad's office -- attended by the wives -- my mom was called 'Ibu Muien Podungge': my dad's name. Her own name -- Ida -- was not known.

 

When our family moved to another area in 1981, my mom was also called as 'Ibu Muien'. Then I recognized the 'trigger'. The inhabitants there could be included into the middle class society.

 

To conclude it, women who belong to the middle class society, they will get the annihilation of self-existence after they get married.

 

This conclusion is supported by what happened in the low class society of American women in the nineteenth century. In her poem entitled "Ain't I a Woman?" Sojourner Truth complained the unfair treatment to low class women, moreover she was black. ((Click http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/aint-i-woman.html ) Besides, Mary Ann Fitch Wescott, the mother of Charlotte Perkins Gilman (one feminist author living in 1860-1935), the author of "The Yellow Wallpaper", chose to stay at home, instead of working outside, because she felt that she belonged to the middle class society, although her husband left her with her two kids, that meant she had to depend on her relatives to support her own life and the kids. In the nineteenth century, "the Cult of True Womanhood" -- one tenet was the domestication of women -- was only for middle class and upper class women.

 

Going back to the case 'Ibu Agus ...' or 'Ibu Didi ...', I work because I want to work, to actualize myself, as well as to share the knowledge I have with others, not merely because I am a feminist. Nowadays, women working outside the house do not exclusively belong to the low class women. While for nicknames, well, I agree with what Shakespeare said, 'what is in a name?' I respected women who proudly use their husband family name behind their name, and leave their maiden name, as long as it is their own choice. I believe they have their own ways to actualize themselves. Even if they are willing to annihilate their self actualization, I respect it. In other words, I also demand other people to respect my choice if I still want people to know me as 'MS NANA PODUNGGE' or just 'Ibu Nana' when I get married again later.

 

Nana Podungge

PBIS 14.34 02.02.10

 

Check my other posts about 'family name'

 

http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/family-name.html

http://afeministblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/family-name-2.html

http://nana-podungge.blogspot.com/2009/04/cedaw-convention-on-elimination-of-all.html